Romanticisation of Feudalism

[Gryphos]

Do you ever feel that the general epic fantasy tends to romanticise the concepts of Monarchy and Feudalism? I dunno, I recently re-watched Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time, and while I absolutely love Tolkien's world and story, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth the way he romanticised the idea of kings and monarchic rulers. Similarly, you get GRRM, whose series has led to a romanticisation of feudalism and the medieval political game in general. And that also leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however much I love his plots.

I mean, obviously feudalism and monarchy and terrible concepts of government and social structure (even 'constitutional monarchies' are a load of bullshit). But whenever I see stories about 'the game (of thrones)' I just want to stick up my hand and remind people that governing a country and maintaining the welfare of its population isn't a 'game'.

*shrugs* I guess this is why I'm one of the people who hopes ASoIaF will end with a popular uprising and establishment of a democratic parliamentary system.

 

[stephenspower]

I'm with you. I can't stand fantasy novels in which the world must be saved for feudalism.

 

[CupofJoe]

Politics of any sort is a game...
Always has been, always will be.
That is what is in these stories, the politics...
Whether it is the politics of grand armies and kings striding across continents, who gets the best seating at the state functions or who get elected to Mayor... it is a game for those playing.
It is all about the acquisition and retention of power...
It used to be you measure success by the size of your army and the fact you still had a head on your shoulders... now it is sometimes a little more nuanced with the counting of votes and opinion polls...
Most of the time, the day-to-day [mundane but important] governing is usually left well alone and far from the tales told.
I've never read a fictional book about ensuring proper sanitation for the health of the populace...
I could be cynical and say that most of the people in politics don't want to govern at all but more important to them is that they don't want "the other side" to govern either... I can't imagine that in a fantasy world it would be much different.

 

[Gryphos]

Politics of any sort is a game...
Always has been, always will be.
That is what is in these stories, the politics...
Whether it is the politics of grand armies and kings striding across continents, who gets the best seating at the state functions or who get elected to Mayor... it is a game for those playing.
It is all about the acquisition and retention of power...

Well, I suppose many people do see it as a game. I'm arguing that it isn't one. Kings striding across continents have people back in their kingdoms who need feeding, who need protecting. And I don't think it's a healthy and productive stance to take that anyone is 'playing the political game', as it devalues the real people who live or die based on the outcome of the 'game'. But again, maybe that's just me.

I've never read a fictional book about ensuring proper sanitation for the health of the populace...

No, but personally I would love to read about someone who genuinely sought to ensure those things.

 

[X Equestris]

The thing a lot of people overlook is that feudalism and monarchies are the best forms of government available in some places under certain conditions. Democratic forms of government require their voting populace to be decently educated and at least minimally tolerant of the existence of minorities if they are to function even remotely responsibly.

 

[Gryphos]

The thing a lot of people overlook is that feudalism and monarchies are the best forms of government available in some places under certain conditions. Democratic forms of government require their voting populace to be decently educated and at least minimally tolerant of the existence of minorities if they are to function even remotely responsibly.

I suppose, but just because it's the most convenient system in a specific situation doesn't make it a good system in any way whatsoever. Feudalism is a system of oppression and monarchism is a system by which someone can have authority because of their last name.

 

[X Equestris]

Democratic governments aren't necessarily any better. Their politicians play the same, or worse, political games that the nobility plays in a feudalistic setting. All being a politician in a democratic government means is that you won your election, possibly by the slimmest of margins, and possibly by foul means. That election might not even be very representative of the will of the public. Democratic governments also have to contend with demagoguery, which has been the downfall of many a democracy.

 

[skip.knox]

Is this the place where I raise my hand and say there was no such thing as feudalism? It's a lawyer's construct long since debunked by historians, but kept alive in popular mythology and bad textbooks. This probably isn't the place to slog through the details, but I can provide references for those brave enough to read late medieval legal theory.

There were plenty of good kings (e.g. Louis IX), far more mediocre ones, very few outright bad ones (e.g. Henry VI). Usually the bad ones were simply bad at being king rather than being tyrannical or evil.

I don't think monarchy is intrinsically bad. Wise rule is wise rule, and the form that takes is sort of irrelevant to the common person. Most people were not oppressed by kings for the simple reason that the king's reach did not extend that far. We have to be careful not to project the frightening efficiency of modern government back into the Middle Ages, when the height of financial management meant putting *two* locks on the treasury lid under your bed. People give medieval government way too much credit.

All that said, yes people do romanticize the Middle Ages. There are very good cultural reasons why we do this, reasons so deeply seated that there is little historians can do in the face of it. That's why more people have heard of GRRM than have heard of Susan Randall. I don't mind. Human cultures need their myths more than they need our history.

 

[Penpilot]

Well, quite a lot of fiction romanticise periods in time, WW2, the '50s, the '60s, the '70s, the '80s, etc.

I think it's human nature to romanticise the past. And there's a general tendency to think the past was a better time, when in reality it was probably because one was too young to notice the flaws. Or in the case of periods before one's life, it tends to be like fiction, all the boring parts removed, and all the good stuff condensed.

Just look at the last 20 years, the computing revolution, the rise of the internet, instantaneous communication and information via smartphones. Exciting times, but not quite romanticised yet because we're still living it. But I bet in a another 20 years, people will be daydreaming about how awesome it would be to live in our present, where new discoveries are being made all the time.

 

[skip.knox]

We are all of us living in someone else's future. I don't remember who said that to me, but it has always stuck.

 

[Gryphos]

I don't think monarchy is intrinsically bad. Wise rule is wise rule, and the form that takes is sort of irrelevant to the common person.

But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.

 

[Telcontar]

But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.

Absolutely. The concept of inherited nobility is perverse - but it's also easy to see how it came about. Hell, it still exists in many ways - wealthy and powerful parents pass on a great deal of their wealth and power to their children. People on top tend to stay on top through sheer inertia and accumulated power, regardless of actual ability or merit.

You might say that pairing success to merit is one of the long-term challenges of the entire human race.

 

[Penpilot]

But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.

There's a bit of gray area here. Humans are tribal by nature. Tribes need leaders. Ideally, we'd say rule by council, by majority vote, or something like that. But that isn't the most efficient way to lead, especially when quick decisions need to be made. The armed forces command structure is an example of this.

If an alpha male rises to power and is able to keep their tribe fed and relatively prosperous, when they have offspring, ideally, they pass on the physical and mental traits on to their children, in a way cloning themselves. It's like Grog was a good leader, so his son Brog will be one too because Grog taught him everything he knows.

Obviously this isn't necessarily what always happens in reality, but you have to think it's a tendency that happened often enough to have it be something that developed all around the world.

Even in the modern world we tend to attribute the qualities of the parent onto the children. People think JFK was a good president, so his son, before his death, was assumed to be president in waiting, so to speak. There are phrases like "Like father like son" "Like mother like daughter". These are concepts that are ingrained into humanity.

So back to the statement of it being morally wrong to be born into a position of power/authority. I say it depends. It's not black and white. Here's the thing, Any parent that has some level of authority/power passes some of that along to their children by default. For example, Jill's Mom own's the hardware store, so Jill has the authority to run behind the counter and play with the hammers all she wants. OR Jill's Mom owns the restaurant, so she can ask the chefs to cook her and her friends meals for free.

Taking it back to leadership and rule, say Grog dies and his son Brog is set to take his position as leader of the tribe, but before he does, there's an open call for challengers. If a challenger can prove they're a better leader than Brog, they become leader. Doesn't that make things marginally better? And I think that gets at, at least in part, where the problem is. It's not hereditary rule, but the inability to challenge that rule or displace it in a fair manner if the succeeding ruler proves unfit.

Edit: Gahh.. Just realized part of my post got ninja'd by Telcontar while I was writing it.

 

[X Equestris]

But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.

Not all monarchies are hereditary.

 

[Russ]

But isn't it still ideologically and morally wrong for someone to be born into a position of power/authority? I can't be alone in thinking that.

That is an interesting question.

There is some value in being identified as a future ruler as early as possible. It allows the resources neccessary to train that person to be the future ruler to be applied early and often. I suspect there is a lot to learn to be King or Emperor, and with education much more constrained and shorter lifespans you had to start early.

Somebody up stream suggested medieval finances were quite simple. I would disagree. They engaged in taxation, borrowing, had mortgages, and all sorts of credit notes. If you look at how the English kings had to finance their overseas wars or how the Habsburgs had to finance their empire through local diets etc...there was a lot of sophisticated stuff going on.

 

[Gryphos]

Not all monarchies are hereditary.

Very true, but if I'm not mistaken in all cases the person ascending to throne comes from some sort of nobility which they were born into (except for very rare cases which are exceptions to the rule).

As to monarchies' efficiency factor, meh, I suppose. But to me that doesn't mean shit when you compare going the wrong direction quickly or the right direction slowly.

Yes, I understand that monarchies are a naturally developing thing and in the past probably were (as opposed to the lesser of two evils) the only evil possible. But I still can't stand it when people romanticise it. It's a (efficient) immoral system that propagates oppressive class structures. Democratic council/parliamentary systems are, while inefficient at times, still vastly superior to any monarchic system on moral grounds.

I suppose this comes from my tendency to draw a very big distinction between what is and what should be. Monarchies are and have been, for a reason I understand. However, they shouldn't be.

 

[skip.knox]

I am chary of bringing my own morals into someone else's story. If they want to romanticize monarchs or even monarchy itself, then have at it. All I ask is they tell me a good story.

As for judging the historical institution, I'm a historian by training, so my job is to understand rather than to judge. I recognize this is peculiar to my profession, so others are free to pass judgment on all human history if they wish. But you won't be able to persuade me personally. Institutions are not intrinsically good or evil; only the people who inhabit them are. You may take that as Skip's Eternal Verity #8 which, along with $2.50, will get you bus fare in most major cities.

 

[Jabrosky]

If monarchy and other non-democratic systems of government prevail in most high fantasy settings, I would chalk that up less to romanticization of those systems than to the prejudice that high fantasy must take place in pre-industrial civilizations. And most of those did have social stratification to one degree of another. Even classical Athens let only 10-20% of its population participate in its "democracy", all of them men with military training.

I'd even go so far as to suggest a stratified organization makes sense for a society with a high population density, the prerequisite for "civilization" as we conventionally understand it. You need leaders to manage all those people and get them to cooperate. Pure egalitarian democracy (or anarchy or communism if you prefer) works better for hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists with low population densities.

Does this mean the government of a pre-industrial civilization has to be a hereditary monarchy? Maybe not, but if you want to rule the kingdom, having parents with years of ruling experience would give you an educational boost above the other candidates.

 

[cupiscent]

Some fun related reading for this thread:
- Max Gladstone on Sacred Kingship in Fantasy and how maybe monarchy is just a symbol for control over our own "kingdom" (an older piece)
- io9's 10 worst misconceptions about medieval life you'd get from fantasy fiction which doesn't get into the feudal monarchy, but has some other great stuff

 

[Gryphos]

As for judging the historical institution, I'm a historian by training, so my job is to understand rather than to judge.

And I totally respect this as a stance.

Institutions are not intrinsically good or evil; only the people who inhabit them are.

If you'll forgive me, I find this to be rather like saying "slavery isn't evil; only the slave owners are". Technically, you could argue semantics on whether or not an act itself can be good or bad as opposed to just those who carry it out, but for all intents and purposes the act can be considered wrong. You could have a good king, but he'd be part of a shitty system.

If monarchy and other non-democratic systems of government prevail in most high fantasy settings, I would chalk that up less to romanticization of those systems than to the prejudice that high fantasy must take place in pre-industrial civilizations. And most of those did have social stratification to one degree of another.

Absolutely. My problem isn't with having monarchies in a high fantasy setting, it's simply with the romanticisation of them or the system that supports them. I just want a few more fantasy writers to take a step back and think about the moral implications of the systems they're portraying.